Labels

Monday, 17 June 2013

Belgium and the Netherlands escalate their children’s euthanasia programmes

In this last week both Belgium and the Netherlands have
taken major steps towards euthanasia for children.

A consensus among members of the Belgian Federal Parliament has
reportedly
formed in support of legislation to allow children to choose to undergo
euthanasia in certain dire cases, according to a report in the Belgian daily newspaper
Der Morgen, as translated by the Paris-based news agency Presseurop.

If child euthanasia is legalized in Belgium, the country
would become the first in the developed world to have a law on the books formally
allowing the practice.

Belgium became the second country in the world after the
Netherlands to legalize euthanasia in 2002, but the statute currently extends
only to people 18 or older.

The bill, introduced by the Socialist party last
December, lays out guidelines for doctors to decide on a case-by-case basis
whether or not a child is mature enough to make the decision to end his or her
own life, as well as whether a child's health is grave and hopeless enough to
warrant euthanasia.

‘The idea is to update the law to take better account of
dramatic situations and extremely harrowing cases we must find a response to,’
Socialist party leader Thierry Giet said shortly after the bill was
introduced, according to Agence France-Presse.

‘On both sides of the linguistic border, liberals and
socialists appear to agree on the fact that age should not be regarded as a
decisive criterion in the event of a request for euthanasia,’ Der Morgen wrote last week.

The decision to consider the bill follows months of
testimony by medical experts, doctors, clergy members and others, and it marks
a turning point in the nation's approach to the rights of young people, some of
whom would be able to choose to die if the law were to pass, even while still
being legally barred from driving, marrying, voting or drinking liquor until
they turned 18.

The bill would also likely allow euthanasia for patients
suffering from Alzheimer's and other diseases leading to advanced dementia, who
may otherwise be deemed incompetent to make the decision to die. There were
1,133 cases of euthanasia recorded in Belgium in 2011, accounting for about 1
percent of the country's deaths that year, according to AFP.

Peter Deconinck, president of the Belgian medical ethics
organization Reflectiegroep Biomedische Ethiek, has come out in support
of expanding the practice to minors, as has the head of the intensive
care unit of Fabiola Hospital in Brussels, who testified before a Belgian
Senate committee.

‘We all know that euthanasia is already practiced on
children,’ he told the committee. ‘Yes, active euthanasia.’

A majority of members of the Belgian Parliament are
reportedly ready to pass the child euthanasia bill.

In a separate move the Royal Dutch Medical Association
(KNMG), which represents doctors in the Netherlands, has
said that distress felt by parents can justify euthanasia of a dying
newborn.

The Netherlands has since 2005 not prosecuted doctors who
perform euthanasia on some minors as long as the doctors act in accordance with
a set of medical guidelines dubbed the Groningen Protocol, drafted by Dr Eduard Verhagen in
2004.

Verhagen reported in the New
England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in 2005 on 22 babies with spina bifida who
were given lethal injections under the protocol over a seven year period.

However, in a new policy document, ‘Medical decisions about
the lives of newborns with severe abnormalities’ (in
Dutch only) the KNMG now explains why it is acceptable, and perhaps
even necessary, to euthanase children.

What is new about this statement is that it says that the
parents’ suffering may be a reason to kill the newborn.

Amongst other conditions, the policy states that a lethal
injection of muscle relaxant is ethically possible when ‘the period of gasping
and dying persists and the inevitable death is prolonged, in spite of good
preparation, and it causes severe suffering for the parents.’

Dr Verhagen, who is also one of the authors of the recent KNMG
report, explained to Volkskrant,
a leading Dutch newspaper, why parental anguish is relevant.

Doctors should spare parents the ‘abomination’ of seeing
their child die in distress, he argues. It is part of good palliative care.

The criteria for euthanasing newborns are as follows (from
page 54 of the report): if the child is suffering, if it cannot express its own
wishes, if death is inevitable and if the dying process is prolonged, then the
child may be euthanased and spare the parents further severe suffering.

Of the 175,000 babies born every year in The
Netherlands, the
KNMG suggests that about 650 might be cases which would be worthy of
euthanasia.

‘These babies, despite very intensive treatment, will
certainly die in the short term. They have a poor prognosis and a very bleak
life perspective. They may not be dependent on intensive care but they face a
life of serious and hopeless suffering. Doctors and parents face the
exceedingly profound question of whether to start or continue treatment or even
whether a good action may actually be a harm, in view of the suffering and
disability that may result from the poor health of the child.’

These disturbing latest developments in the two countries
which were the first to legalise euthanasia in Europe demonstrate graphically
the incremental extension that takes place once the door is opened and the
public conscience begins to change.

The acceptance of two key concepts is what makes this
extension inevitable – first it is accepted that there is such a thing as a
life not worth living and second that the active ending of a person’s life is
justified in order to lessen the suffering of others.

It was these two principles that were
used to justify the killing an infant with limb abnormalities and
congenital blindness (named Knauer) with parental consent by Dr Karl Brandt in neighbouring
Germany in 1939.

This 'test-case' paved the way for the registration of all
children under three years of age with 'serious hereditary diseases'. This
information was then used by a panel of 'experts', including three medical
professors (who never saw the patients), to authorise death by injection or
starvation of some 6,000 children by the end of the Second World War.

The euthanasia programme in Nazi Germany, later headed by the same Karl Brandt, did not begin in
prison camps like Auschwitz and Treblinka. It began far more subtly with doctors in hospitals
and its very first victims were children who were killed on supposedly
compassionate grounds.

It is bitterly ironic that child euthanasia is happening
again seventy years later on the very same grounds in two countries that share
a common border with Germany.

This is the argument of Dr Helga Kuhse, then President of the World Federation of Societies for the Right to Die, at their 5th Biennial Congress on the Right to Die held in Nice, France, September 1984:

'If we can get people to accept the removal of all treatment and care – especially the removal of all food and fluids – they will see what a painful way this is to die and then, in the patient’s best interests, they will accept the lethal injection.'

We know in these last days, that signs and wonders will happen when we pray in faith and with power. Satan knows this, and each sign and wonder, will lead more and more people to Christ. So, it looks like Satan has influenced these nations to kill off the 'hopeless' cases, in order there will be no one left who needs to witness a visible miracle in order for them to believe in God.

It is also clear that these nations no longer have any concept of God. If they did, they would see that these children are anything but hopeless and helpless. They are an opportunity for God to reveal His touch in their lives. You see many spina bifida victims, and they are the happiest people on earth. What about Nick Vujicec? Would he have been ministered euthanasia if he was born today? He is one of the most inspiring people in the world today. Who on earth do these so called bright politicians, doctors, even clergy think they are to determine who or who isn't a lost cause? Are they God? No! They don't even have the mind of God.

Yes doctors have the power to kill which, like Shipman, they can abuse. But you wish also to give them the legal authority to kill. Power plus authority. Very dangerous. True compassion does not kill. It cares without killing.

My opinion of euthanasia is divided. In an ideal world, no-one would feel that euthanasia should be an option. However, we do not live in a perfect world. And people face many challenges- some cope, others face hardships I can't even imagine, and choose euthanasia. If governments allow euthanasia, it is of the utmost importance that it is carried out correctly, case by case, with respect for everyone involved.

Humanity hasn't solved problems like war, starvation and environmental destruction and it's delusional to think we have the maturity and insight required to mess around with ideologies like this one. We should have learned this 70 years ago! If someone under 18 has the right to die, do they also have the right to do things like drive a car or vote?

I am against euthanasia. I am old enough to be worried that I would be disposed of rather than cared for if I were seriously ill. More importantly, I would doubt whether my own GP was acting in my best interests if I knew he had the option. I hope I die peacefully: I do not want to die because someone thinks I am too much bother to care for.

Contact the author

Search this Blog

Kiwi, Christian and Medical

This blog deals mainly with matters at the interface of Christianity and Medicine. But I do also diverge into other subjects - especially New Zealand, rugby, economics, developing world, politics and topics of general Christian and/or medical interest. The opinions expressed here are mine and may not necessarily reflect the views of my employer or anyone else associated with me.

About Me

I am CEO of Christian Medical Fellowship, a UK-based organisation with 4,500 UK doctors and 1,000 medical students as members. The opinions expressed here however are mine, and may not necessarily reflect the views of CMF or anyone else associated with me.